Alien Existence?
- Thread starter ilikeballs
- Start date
just because you choose to call it evolution doesnt mean im describing evolution. what i am describing is a variation of the same kind of species. and i am aware of such an expirament. but i suggest you look more into that since there are a few problems with this expirament. it didnt involve the conditions that were present at the time the universe was created. and also like you said to hemp two optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture, left and right. life is made up of left handed optical isomers. if even one right handed optical isomer is present it kills any chance of life from happening. and also mathane cant survive in an oxygen rich enviroment, which was the precisely one of the conditions that was present at the time the universe was created. so i suggest you wipe your crapped pants and look into that one again.
The only statements I’ve made pertaining to the formation of life are:
Post #76 = jon21 asked “how do you get living things from non-living matter” and I replied “specifically, no-one knows”. I then told him that he was on drugs if he believed that man “derived from a rock through millions of years of evolution”. If he meant that life may have formed through the interaction of inorganic molecules with clay, forming organised crystal-like structures, then that’s one possibility. I refuse to believe that these were his thoughts when using the word ‘rock’ though.
Post #77 = I posted a rebuttal to jon21’s spiel against evolution. This was focussed on the method of evolution, not how life originally started.
Posts #86 and #87 were concerned again with the evolution of specific traits which benefit the individual who possesses them. Nothing to do with how life started.
As I said in a previous post, if we knew exactly how life started, then all those ignorant creationists would have to cede defeat and admit that the formation of life occurred by natural means. The argument ‘if you don’t know how life started, then that debunks your whole theory of evolution’ doesn’t hold much weight in my court – the process of evolution occurs regardless of how life formed and even if God ‘Himself’ created life, this life still subsequently evolved (unless they believe that man was formed in his image, in which case the believer is extremely arrogant!).
Post #76 = jon21 asked “how do you get living things from non-living matter” and I replied “specifically, no-one knows”. I then told him that he was on drugs if he believed that man “derived from a rock through millions of years of evolution”. If he meant that life may have formed through the interaction of inorganic molecules with clay, forming organised crystal-like structures, then that’s one possibility. I refuse to believe that these were his thoughts when using the word ‘rock’ though.
Post #77 = I posted a rebuttal to jon21’s spiel against evolution. This was focussed on the method of evolution, not how life originally started.
Posts #86 and #87 were concerned again with the evolution of specific traits which benefit the individual who possesses them. Nothing to do with how life started.
As I said in a previous post, if we knew exactly how life started, then all those ignorant creationists would have to cede defeat and admit that the formation of life occurred by natural means. The argument ‘if you don’t know how life started, then that debunks your whole theory of evolution’ doesn’t hold much weight in my court – the process of evolution occurs regardless of how life formed and even if God ‘Himself’ created life, this life still subsequently evolved (unless they believe that man was formed in his image, in which case the believer is extremely arrogant!).
You're a strange guy jon21, very strange - if you recall, you said that A mutation (presumably a single mutation) would form a different species that could not breed with the original species (i.e. a MASSIVE mutation!) and I said that mutations are small and take time to accumulate. You then criticized me for believing that mutations are all massive (produce X-men). I don't know what mistake I have made in this specific argument and in what way it should affect my pride. Please explain.
Go back and read my last post. I never said that HAVING sickle-cell anemia was a good thing. I said that having one copy of the sickle-cell gene was a good thing...
Mendelian genetics 101:
Everyone normally has two genes for a single trait - these genes can be DOMINANT, RECESSIVE or CO-DOMINANT. If you have two copies of the same gene, then it doesn't matter whether they are dominant or recessive. However, if you have one copy of two different versions of the gene, the dominant one will be expressed and the recessive one will be silenced.
The version of the sickle-cell gene which produces the disease is recessive, meaning that you need two copies to express the phenotype (develop the disease). If you only have one copy, it is silenced and the normal gene is instead expressed. Simply put;
sickle-cell gene + sickle-cell gene = sickle-cell disease (not good)
sickle-cell gene + normal gene = resistance to malaria (good)
normal gene + normal gene = no phenotypic difference ('normal' person)
Because the prevalence of the sickle-cell gene is so low, even in African populations, the chances of both parents having copies is also very low. The chances of one parent having a copy is much higher though (if 1 in 10 people have the gene, then 1 in 10 children will receive a single copy (be resistant to malaria) whereas only 1 in 100 (10x10) will get both copies of the gene (have sickle-cell anemia).
Go back and read my last post. I never said that HAVING sickle-cell anemia was a good thing. I said that having one copy of the sickle-cell gene was a good thing...
Mendelian genetics 101:
Everyone normally has two genes for a single trait - these genes can be DOMINANT, RECESSIVE or CO-DOMINANT. If you have two copies of the same gene, then it doesn't matter whether they are dominant or recessive. However, if you have one copy of two different versions of the gene, the dominant one will be expressed and the recessive one will be silenced.
The version of the sickle-cell gene which produces the disease is recessive, meaning that you need two copies to express the phenotype (develop the disease). If you only have one copy, it is silenced and the normal gene is instead expressed. Simply put;
sickle-cell gene + sickle-cell gene = sickle-cell disease (not good)
sickle-cell gene + normal gene = resistance to malaria (good)
normal gene + normal gene = no phenotypic difference ('normal' person)
Because the prevalence of the sickle-cell gene is so low, even in African populations, the chances of both parents having copies is also very low. The chances of one parent having a copy is much higher though (if 1 in 10 people have the gene, then 1 in 10 children will receive a single copy (be resistant to malaria) whereas only 1 in 100 (10x10) will get both copies of the gene (have sickle-cell anemia).
You're really grabbing at straws, aren't you jon?
OK then. Simply put, evolution occurs when an organism is exposed to an environment that they are not properly suited to.
Let's say that this bacteria of which I speak is just one of a huge population of soil bacteria, native to South Australia. The weather is usually nice here, not much frost, good sun and ample nutrients for them to thrive. They've filled this niche and don't need to do much evolution - why should they, they don't need to.
Now, what if someone grabbed a few shovels of dirt and transported it to alaska for some reason (it's not important why). These cells would undergo numerous mutations, most of which would be deliterious but some of which would be advantageous. Let's say that, over time, cells underwent mutations which, for example:
- increased the strength of their cell wall (decreasing the chances of leakage and dehydration because of the cold),
- enabled them to maximise the use of local mineral and nutrient compositions,
- provided them with resistance to native viruses and toxic compounds (perhaps extruded from plants into the soil) etc.
Etcetera - you get the picture. Several hundred years down the track, if you analyzed bacteria from both populations they would be so different as to constitute different species. If you have the time and/or inclination, read up on Darwins finches. Here's a basic site if you're interested: http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html
OK then. Simply put, evolution occurs when an organism is exposed to an environment that they are not properly suited to.
Let's say that this bacteria of which I speak is just one of a huge population of soil bacteria, native to South Australia. The weather is usually nice here, not much frost, good sun and ample nutrients for them to thrive. They've filled this niche and don't need to do much evolution - why should they, they don't need to.
Now, what if someone grabbed a few shovels of dirt and transported it to alaska for some reason (it's not important why). These cells would undergo numerous mutations, most of which would be deliterious but some of which would be advantageous. Let's say that, over time, cells underwent mutations which, for example:
- increased the strength of their cell wall (decreasing the chances of leakage and dehydration because of the cold),
- enabled them to maximise the use of local mineral and nutrient compositions,
- provided them with resistance to native viruses and toxic compounds (perhaps extruded from plants into the soil) etc.
Etcetera - you get the picture. Several hundred years down the track, if you analyzed bacteria from both populations they would be so different as to constitute different species. If you have the time and/or inclination, read up on Darwins finches. Here's a basic site if you're interested: http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html
Those are not the only statements you made, Hutch. Go back and read some of the statements you made in response to me.
First of all, why do creationists have to be ignorant? Is it because they don't have the same beliefs as you? You just said, "Nobody knows for sure how life came from non-living material", so how is the creationist ignorant/wrong in his or her thinking or belief? Lets say for example that we knew how life started and it started from some "god" saying "HERESY COOK ME A STEAK", wouldn't YOU have to cede defeat and admit it came from God? Your entire argument is one gigantic cesspool of contradictions. Why is it that if we knew the creationist would have to cede? According to you NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE, so how can you be so sure about the creationist being wrong? In addition, the insults don't do your argument any good. I've yet to see creationits that were firm and cogent in their beliefs reduce themselves to name calling when dealing with evolutionists who have the same traits.
Hutch, I have several FTP's in your court, and I like being held in contempt. I hope that gives you some idea about how I feel about your court and it's validity.
Again, you've destroyed your entire argument. Evolution is a theory, please remove me from your court.
:looks at the baliff:
First of all, why do creationists have to be ignorant? Is it because they don't have the same beliefs as you? You just said, "Nobody knows for sure how life came from non-living material", so how is the creationist ignorant/wrong in his or her thinking or belief? Lets say for example that we knew how life started and it started from some "god" saying "HERESY COOK ME A STEAK", wouldn't YOU have to cede defeat and admit it came from God? Your entire argument is one gigantic cesspool of contradictions. Why is it that if we knew the creationist would have to cede? According to you NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE, so how can you be so sure about the creationist being wrong? In addition, the insults don't do your argument any good. I've yet to see creationits that were firm and cogent in their beliefs reduce themselves to name calling when dealing with evolutionists who have the same traits.
Hutch, I have several FTP's in your court, and I like being held in contempt. I hope that gives you some idea about how I feel about your court and it's validity.
Again, you've destroyed your entire argument. Evolution is a theory, please remove me from your court.
:looks at the baliff:
Again, I don't know what statements you're talking about. Post #15: Asked why Angel or Demon should be attributed to an alien life form (nothing about the development of life); #23: Replied to you following your classy attack about me being paid to think; #24: Suggested that the Dulce book was full of shit (again, nothing about the development of life); #27: Stated my belief that aliens are far more likely to exist than God, put forth the belief that Jesus was an alien and not the actual son of God and complained about the members of this board trying to explain everything with the phrase "God did it"; #33: Admitted that God might exist however improbable it might be, reiterated my previous comments regarding the higher likelihood of aliens existing than of God existing.
In each of these posts, I cannot see any information which contradicts my previous statement "Nobody knows for sure how life came from non-living material". I urge you Heresy, point out exactly where I make this contradiction and explain it to me.
In each of these posts, I cannot see any information which contradicts my previous statement "Nobody knows for sure how life came from non-living material". I urge you Heresy, point out exactly where I make this contradiction and explain it to me.
Ignorance: the condition of being uneducated, unaware or uninformed. Based on this definition, yes, creationists are ignorant because they do not share my beliefs. The reason is this: there is no evidence that supports their position and bountiful evidence supporting mine. As such, in your quotation of my previous statement, you should have placed special emphasis on the ‘for sure’ and left the ‘Nobody’ unformatted. I could paraphrase my previous statement to read “scientists have a good idea and several realistic theories suggesting how life could have started”.
The primary foundation for creationists belief that life could not have began/evolved naturally is the argument of ‘irreducible complexity’. In the form of a question, is there any biological organ that could not have developed through a progression of natural steps, each providing a greater benefit to the host organism? The answer is no – there is not a single example of irreducible complexity that has been confirmed. This has rendered the primary argument for creationism obsolete. The fact that advocates for creationism don’t have any evidence of their own and rely solely on arguments which attempt to refute natural selection (every argument of which has failed) shows how weak their position really is.
A useful analogy would be a two-horse race, with natural selection paying $1.01 per dollar and creationism paying $1000 per dollar. These odds reflect the evidence suggesting that natural selection is by far the better horse. I cannot blame anyone for putting a few dollars on creationism because if they win, it will provide abundant returns. However, if anyone seriously thinks that creationism will ‘win the race’, I would have to point out their inability to justify such a position. That is how the creationist is wrong in his or her thinking and belief and why it is highly improbable that I would ever have to cede defeat and admit that ‘it came from God’. Your example of God creating life by saying ‘Heresy, cook me a steak’ is akin to suggesting that God himself is likely to make an appearance on Earth and tell us how he created life – i.e. the probability of it happening is too small to calculate, regardless of how much faith you have.
So again Heresy, you can have your minor victory – I am not ‘sure’ that creationists will have to cede defeat. I am only 99.99999% sure (and with a little blind faith, religious followers probably like their chances.).
You’re not looking hard enough. Don’t try to take the moral high ground Heresy, it’s slippery up there and I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.
Do you know the definition of theory? Type it into Google and see what comes back. Here is the first one I found (answers.com): “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” Evolution fits the bill perfectly – using evolution, we can make and have made numerous predictions about life and the forms it takes. Not a single observation has countered the foundation of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. I consider this good enough to put my trust in the theory. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a true religious theory – that’s giving religion too much credit. There is no ‘theory of creationism’ because it has not been tested and cannot be used to make predictions about anything. It is simply a pure guess devised through blind faith. I think you’re intelligent enough to understand why I think it’s a load of bullshit, aren’t you?
So what you’re saying is that you don’t agree with me and feel obliged to argue your point. Wow, I never would have guessed. I’ve no intention of removing you from my court until I’ve passed my verdict and slapped you with a nasty sentence. You might as well plead guilty, atleast that way you might be eligible for parole.
The primary foundation for creationists belief that life could not have began/evolved naturally is the argument of ‘irreducible complexity’. In the form of a question, is there any biological organ that could not have developed through a progression of natural steps, each providing a greater benefit to the host organism? The answer is no – there is not a single example of irreducible complexity that has been confirmed. This has rendered the primary argument for creationism obsolete. The fact that advocates for creationism don’t have any evidence of their own and rely solely on arguments which attempt to refute natural selection (every argument of which has failed) shows how weak their position really is.
A useful analogy would be a two-horse race, with natural selection paying $1.01 per dollar and creationism paying $1000 per dollar. These odds reflect the evidence suggesting that natural selection is by far the better horse. I cannot blame anyone for putting a few dollars on creationism because if they win, it will provide abundant returns. However, if anyone seriously thinks that creationism will ‘win the race’, I would have to point out their inability to justify such a position. That is how the creationist is wrong in his or her thinking and belief and why it is highly improbable that I would ever have to cede defeat and admit that ‘it came from God’. Your example of God creating life by saying ‘Heresy, cook me a steak’ is akin to suggesting that God himself is likely to make an appearance on Earth and tell us how he created life – i.e. the probability of it happening is too small to calculate, regardless of how much faith you have.
So again Heresy, you can have your minor victory – I am not ‘sure’ that creationists will have to cede defeat. I am only 99.99999% sure (and with a little blind faith, religious followers probably like their chances.).
You’re not looking hard enough. Don’t try to take the moral high ground Heresy, it’s slippery up there and I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.
Do you know the definition of theory? Type it into Google and see what comes back. Here is the first one I found (answers.com): “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” Evolution fits the bill perfectly – using evolution, we can make and have made numerous predictions about life and the forms it takes. Not a single observation has countered the foundation of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. I consider this good enough to put my trust in the theory. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a true religious theory – that’s giving religion too much credit. There is no ‘theory of creationism’ because it has not been tested and cannot be used to make predictions about anything. It is simply a pure guess devised through blind faith. I think you’re intelligent enough to understand why I think it’s a load of bullshit, aren’t you?
So what you’re saying is that you don’t agree with me and feel obliged to argue your point. Wow, I never would have guessed. I’ve no intention of removing you from my court until I’ve passed my verdict and slapped you with a nasty sentence. You might as well plead guilty, atleast that way you might be eligible for parole.
This is pure opinion on your part. Creationist have "evidence" and the evidence is often debated because it is not derived from the "scientific means" and this is what you're basing it on.
No. I did it that way for a reason, it will stand, and I don't need you to paraphrase it. You typed it, and we'll focus on what you typed. Even if we DID use your new statement the same problem arises when we take a look at the words in bold:
Good idea = not 100%, a thought, guesswork.
Theories = you already know the definition.
Could = possible/possibility.
Now lets toss it altogether and see what you come up with.
Hutch, can you explain how this wikipedia-like history lesson is remotely related to anything I've typed? Not all creationalist hold the ‘irreducible complexity’ belief (which IS a different school of thought that I.D.), and so what if nothing has yet to be proven? The term was coined apprx TEN YEARS AGO, so if this is a fairly new idea, why are you condemning something that hasn't been fully developed yet?
So you're going to develop more circle talk to avoid what I typed. Impressive.
You still don't get it, Hutch. The point is you said NOBODY knows for sure, and I am saying that if we DID know for sure, and the creationist were correct, YOU would have to cede defeat. I simply used Heresy and steak as an example of how life COULD have started.
Unsupported, and you're probably thinking it's just as unsupported as I.D. or I.C., but so what.
Please show me a debate between creationist and evolutionists (with the traits I listed) that developed into name calling/insults. But to be honest, I see more evolutionist and atheist doing it on this board. Now, since you included me in your statement, do you have any instances of me insulting the evolutionist because of his beliefs?
I don't argue the creationist vs evolutionist stuff anymore, and when I did most of it was with comrade 206. I don't recall either of us insulting each other, and you should take it as a compliment that I mentioned insults. It appears that you're the only one here doing it. I've watched you post before, and although we disagree in many areas, in this case, I think your argument holds more weight when you come off level headed (due to the nature of the content.) You don't have to bash the opposition like that because no one here is bashing you, and if I've bashed someone for no reason raise my bail or fine me a couple of more bucks.
Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Hutch, theories can change over time, and science is filled with many theories--evolution being one of them. If theories such as the Big Bang are proven to be fact you'll have a better argument. Also, should we rule something out because it can't be tested NOW?
No, it means I'd rather play Guitar Hero 2.
The baillif looks rather fine. Will she whisper nasty sentences in my ear when I'm carted off to serve hard time?
Hell naw! NEVER plead guilty!!!
No. I did it that way for a reason, it will stand, and I don't need you to paraphrase it. You typed it, and we'll focus on what you typed. Even if we DID use your new statement the same problem arises when we take a look at the words in bold:
Good idea = not 100%, a thought, guesswork.
Theories = you already know the definition.
Could = possible/possibility.
Now lets toss it altogether and see what you come up with.
Hutch, can you explain how this wikipedia-like history lesson is remotely related to anything I've typed? Not all creationalist hold the ‘irreducible complexity’ belief (which IS a different school of thought that I.D.), and so what if nothing has yet to be proven? The term was coined apprx TEN YEARS AGO, so if this is a fairly new idea, why are you condemning something that hasn't been fully developed yet?
So you're going to develop more circle talk to avoid what I typed. Impressive.
You still don't get it, Hutch. The point is you said NOBODY knows for sure, and I am saying that if we DID know for sure, and the creationist were correct, YOU would have to cede defeat. I simply used Heresy and steak as an example of how life COULD have started.
Unsupported, and you're probably thinking it's just as unsupported as I.D. or I.C., but so what.
Please show me a debate between creationist and evolutionists (with the traits I listed) that developed into name calling/insults. But to be honest, I see more evolutionist and atheist doing it on this board. Now, since you included me in your statement, do you have any instances of me insulting the evolutionist because of his beliefs?
I don't argue the creationist vs evolutionist stuff anymore, and when I did most of it was with comrade 206. I don't recall either of us insulting each other, and you should take it as a compliment that I mentioned insults. It appears that you're the only one here doing it. I've watched you post before, and although we disagree in many areas, in this case, I think your argument holds more weight when you come off level headed (due to the nature of the content.) You don't have to bash the opposition like that because no one here is bashing you, and if I've bashed someone for no reason raise my bail or fine me a couple of more bucks.
Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Hutch, theories can change over time, and science is filled with many theories--evolution being one of them. If theories such as the Big Bang are proven to be fact you'll have a better argument. Also, should we rule something out because it can't be tested NOW?
No, it means I'd rather play Guitar Hero 2.
The baillif looks rather fine. Will she whisper nasty sentences in my ear when I'm carted off to serve hard time?
Hell naw! NEVER plead guilty!!!
I don't know - unless you've taken so many drugs as to numb your emotions completely, I think everyone would be atleast a little scared if aliens showed themselves to you. I can see you now sleeping, a bright white light awakening you from your slumber and beaming you up into an alien craft and you shouting "Bring it on Mother Fucker!".
Creationists do not have any evidence. They construct their argument based around gaps in sciences evidence. www.creationism.org presents numerous arguments for the belief in creationism as opposed to scientific alternatives. The authors present the following ‘evidence’ in support of creationism: (a) we haven’t observed direct transitional evidence from the fossil record (this is not evidence, just an absence of evidence), (b) ‘micro-evolution’ does not lend support to ‘macro-evolution’ (again, not evidence but an absence thereof), (c) abiogenesis, the formation of life from non-living material, is ‘impossible’ according to sciences theories (and that makes I.D more possible? Again, they present no evidence in favour of their position but instead attempt to refute sciences evidence). They obviously know little about the life sciences as their ‘impossibility’ regarding abiogenesis springs from the observation that all DNA is left handed, and ‘the chances of everything being left handed, when these molecules are generated in both left and right handed forms of equal quantities, proves this is impossible’. Laughable conclusion that. In a nutshell, creationists and proponents of I.D base their belief on gaps in scientific analysis, and as those gaps are filled with knowledge their ground is being reduced further and further until one day (in the near future I predict), they won’t have a leg to stand on and will have to cede defeat to biologists ‘theories’.
When I combine all those words, I come up with a serious attempt to explain the formation of life without having to invoke the word ‘God’. Somewhat akin to creationists, it appears as though you’re happy with the process of waiting for what a scientist says and then attempting to find gaps in the explanation to use for your own purposes. i.e. the meaning behind my previous statement. OK then, let me be more specific for you. “life scientists have performed several experiments which have provided strong evidence in favour of abiogenesis by natural means. From such evidence, they have devised several realistic theories showing that life can have evolved by natural means”. Creationists thrive on the fact that ‘nobody knows for sure how life started’, they base their whole argument around ignorance and knowledge gaps.
Michael Behe provided ‘expert’ testimony in a court on behalf of a group of creationists who wanted to impose ‘intelligent design’ creationism on the science curriculum of a Pennsylvanian school. He based his argument on the only evidence they had – the gaps in scientific knowledge (a lack of evidence). He used the immune system and bacterial flagellar as examples. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to him, science had already filled those gaps and his argument was subsequently dismantled. As a result, creationists now pick their arguments better, making sure that they find legitimate gaps in scientific knowledge to support their argument.
I know. Michael Behe, the man who I just spoke of, coined the term irreducible complexity in 1996. Are you telling me that I should leave it alone because it has not had enough time to develop? In the previous decade, creationists have thrown every conceivable example of irreducible complexity into the wind. Behe himself even realised that he was getting nowhere using physiology as examples and thus resorted to biochemical and cell biology to find further examples. A solution has been found to their arguments each and every time – there’s nowhere else for them to turn. Ten years of irreducible complexity is all that is required to render this argument null and void.
I do get it Heresy, the concept is not that hard to understand. Nobody does know for sure, and if we did know for sure and the creationist were correct then I would have to cede defeat. Am I correct in assuming that you believe both arguments hold equal weighting in the absence of a definitive answer? You would be wrong if you thought that. God and everything that stems from Him is subject to the laws of probability, just like the electrons circling a hydrogen atom. The probability of God existing, and hence creationism being correct, is extremely low. Scientific evidence shows that the alternative – that abiogenesis occurred by natural means – is much stronger. The horse analogy I used was not intended to side skirt your argument (it didn’t by the way, but if that gives you solace then again, have your little victory) – it was a direct analogy comparing the likelihood of creationism being correct compared to ‘natural’ design based on evidence (and not a lack of evidence).
My position is supported by scientific evidence. I.D. and I.C. are not, they are ‘supported’ by a lack of scientific understanding which is in no way evidence for creationism. That is why I state that the belief in creationism is born of ignorance – it is derived from a lack of knowledge and gets its strength from this lack of knowledge. By calling the ‘opposition’ ignorant, I am in no way deliberately bashing them – it is a fact, like calling Shaquille O’neal tall.
Theories are always developing to fit the available evidence – a positive trait. Why would I have a better argument regarding evolution if the big bang theory proves to be correct – they are two separate events and thus the factuality of one (or if one is disproven) has no bearing on the other. Not all theories are tied together.
Religion cannot be tested now, nor can it be tested in the future. Religion only exists because it is untouchable by science. Every argument between theists and atheists revolves around such an argument, with the theist making bold claims without any evidence supporting them, the atheist RIGHTLY suggesting that without any evidence the statement cannot be proven true, and then the theist resorting to their last wild card (a sign of defeat) – the classic ‘prove God doesn’t exist’. They want to stay in the shadows for if religion were brought into the light, we would all be able to see right through them.
What’s Guitar Hero 2?
When I combine all those words, I come up with a serious attempt to explain the formation of life without having to invoke the word ‘God’. Somewhat akin to creationists, it appears as though you’re happy with the process of waiting for what a scientist says and then attempting to find gaps in the explanation to use for your own purposes. i.e. the meaning behind my previous statement. OK then, let me be more specific for you. “life scientists have performed several experiments which have provided strong evidence in favour of abiogenesis by natural means. From such evidence, they have devised several realistic theories showing that life can have evolved by natural means”. Creationists thrive on the fact that ‘nobody knows for sure how life started’, they base their whole argument around ignorance and knowledge gaps.
Michael Behe provided ‘expert’ testimony in a court on behalf of a group of creationists who wanted to impose ‘intelligent design’ creationism on the science curriculum of a Pennsylvanian school. He based his argument on the only evidence they had – the gaps in scientific knowledge (a lack of evidence). He used the immune system and bacterial flagellar as examples. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to him, science had already filled those gaps and his argument was subsequently dismantled. As a result, creationists now pick their arguments better, making sure that they find legitimate gaps in scientific knowledge to support their argument.
I know. Michael Behe, the man who I just spoke of, coined the term irreducible complexity in 1996. Are you telling me that I should leave it alone because it has not had enough time to develop? In the previous decade, creationists have thrown every conceivable example of irreducible complexity into the wind. Behe himself even realised that he was getting nowhere using physiology as examples and thus resorted to biochemical and cell biology to find further examples. A solution has been found to their arguments each and every time – there’s nowhere else for them to turn. Ten years of irreducible complexity is all that is required to render this argument null and void.
I do get it Heresy, the concept is not that hard to understand. Nobody does know for sure, and if we did know for sure and the creationist were correct then I would have to cede defeat. Am I correct in assuming that you believe both arguments hold equal weighting in the absence of a definitive answer? You would be wrong if you thought that. God and everything that stems from Him is subject to the laws of probability, just like the electrons circling a hydrogen atom. The probability of God existing, and hence creationism being correct, is extremely low. Scientific evidence shows that the alternative – that abiogenesis occurred by natural means – is much stronger. The horse analogy I used was not intended to side skirt your argument (it didn’t by the way, but if that gives you solace then again, have your little victory) – it was a direct analogy comparing the likelihood of creationism being correct compared to ‘natural’ design based on evidence (and not a lack of evidence).
My position is supported by scientific evidence. I.D. and I.C. are not, they are ‘supported’ by a lack of scientific understanding which is in no way evidence for creationism. That is why I state that the belief in creationism is born of ignorance – it is derived from a lack of knowledge and gets its strength from this lack of knowledge. By calling the ‘opposition’ ignorant, I am in no way deliberately bashing them – it is a fact, like calling Shaquille O’neal tall.
Theories are always developing to fit the available evidence – a positive trait. Why would I have a better argument regarding evolution if the big bang theory proves to be correct – they are two separate events and thus the factuality of one (or if one is disproven) has no bearing on the other. Not all theories are tied together.
Religion cannot be tested now, nor can it be tested in the future. Religion only exists because it is untouchable by science. Every argument between theists and atheists revolves around such an argument, with the theist making bold claims without any evidence supporting them, the atheist RIGHTLY suggesting that without any evidence the statement cannot be proven true, and then the theist resorting to their last wild card (a sign of defeat) – the classic ‘prove God doesn’t exist’. They want to stay in the shadows for if religion were brought into the light, we would all be able to see right through them.
What’s Guitar Hero 2?
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/743/743905p1.html
I have a modded PS2, so I download all the games that come out, burn them to dvd and play em. GH 2 was supposed to be released in a couple of days, but someoen got a hold of it, ripped it and put the ISO on the web. I'll answer the rest of your blasphemy tommorow.
I have a modded PS2, so I download all the games that come out, burn them to dvd and play em. GH 2 was supposed to be released in a couple of days, but someoen got a hold of it, ripped it and put the ISO on the web. I'll answer the rest of your blasphemy tommorow.